TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 923X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Held that: - in the appellant own case M/s. Sita Singh & Sons Pvt. Limited (Unit-I) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Delhi IV [2017 (10) TMI 1298 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH], this Tribunal has held that the assessee is liable to pay duty in terms of Rule 10A of the Rules i.e. on the value at which the principal manufacturer cleared the goods on payment of duty, therefore, the differential dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. The proceedings were initiated against the appellant under Rule 10A of the Central Excise valuation Rules, whereas, the appellant has required to pay duty of whole of the body built and inclusive of the valuation of chassis in the goods cleared by SML. In these set of facts, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant to demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, this Tribunal observed as under:- . Heard the parties considering the fact that the identical issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Audi Automobiles V. CCE-2010 (249) ELT 124 (Tri. Del.) wherein it has been held that the assessee is liable to pay duty in terms of Rule 10A of the Rules i.e. on the value at which the principal manufacturer cleared the goods on payment of duty, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and there is no mala-fide intention of the appellant, moreover, the issue is of a valuation, therefore, the penalty is not imposable on the appellant. 5. With these terms, the following order is passed: (A) Demand of duty within the period of limitation is confirmed along with interest. (B) Penalties are not imposable on the appellant. Therefore, relying on the earlier decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
